Rebuttals to Anti-French jokes

[D'Artagnan1673]

Go Salle Armourer.

Edew, the French have on occasion shown some military brilliance. During the Middle Ages, the French were renowned for their chivaliric military. Of the flip side, the French had a class of knights called Troubadoers (major butchering on the spelling there) who wrote many of the tales of love and romantic intrigue which were popular during the time. All together, the French really have an interesting history and still remain an interest of mine. However, I disagree with their stance in world affairs today.

I've been thinking on the whole France helped the US during our Revolution and I suddenly remembered why they did this. It wasn't the French people helping us out of the goodness of their heart. It was the French monarchy doing anything to undermine England.

On Joan of Arc, I don't have any proof, but I've heard somewhere that Joan of Arc never received any true attention until about 100 years ago as the world went feminist. Perhaps she was really a minor charactor in the 100 years war which was painted as a great hero as a banner for the feminist movement; a way of showing that women can do great things. Any thoughts on that? From watching the Leelee version, she looks like nothing more than a figurehead or morale booster for the French army.

From my brief studies of the 100 years war, I've found that the French adopted the tactics of the English later in the war of hiring a professional army added with their development and use of artillary to uproot the English. Don't forget that there were not a great many battles in which armies faced each other in an open field. Most battles were in the form of sieges or an English tactic called the Chevalchee (another butchered spelling, but I don't have my book in front of me) in which you raid a weakly defended area, burn pillage and steal, and then withdraw to a more easily defendible position. All I am getting at is that perhaps Joan's relevance to the outcome of the war was not as significant as modern historians claim. I'm not saying she wasn't important, but like anything regarding history and politics, its rarely cut and dry.

[KBayDog]

I refuse to be drawn into the France vs. US debate...however:

I am glad to see I am not the only one who realizes that France's aid during the American Revolution has been overstated recently. They did, indeed, have an ulterior motive when supporting us.

Fortunately, it worked out to our advantage.

If we are to understand why the revolution was ultimately successful, we need to more closely examine the influence of Von Steuben - organizing and drilling our land militias into a formidable and modern army.

[Curious George]

I refuse to be drawn into the France vs. US debate...however:

I am glad to see I am not the only one who realizes that France's aid during the American Revolution has been overstated recently. They did, indeed, have an ulterior motive when supporting us.

Fortunately, it worked out to our advantage.

If we are to understand why the revolution was ultimately successful, we need to more closely examine the influence of Von Steuben - organizing and drilling our land militias into a formidable and modern army.

:mad2:

[civiltech]

And the American's never go anywhere for there personal interest....always for the greater good....

[Curious George]

And the American's never go anywhere for there personal interest....always for the greater good....

Your purpose is the greater good.

[civiltech]

Originally posted by Curious George
Your purpose is the greater good.

Your having way to much fun with your posts!!

[Curious George]

Your having way to much fun with your posts!!

:xmas:

[edew]

Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673
[...]

On Joan of Arc, I don't have any proof, but I've heard somewhere that Joan of Arc never received any true attention until about 100 years ago as the world went feminist. Perhaps she was really a minor charactor in the 100 years war which was painted as a great hero as a banner for the feminist movement; a way of showing that women can do great things. Any thoughts on that? From watching the Leelee version, she looks like nothing more than a figurehead or morale booster for the French army.

From my brief studies of the 100 years war, I've found that the French adopted the tactics of the English later in the war of hiring a professional army added with their development and use of artillary to uproot the English. Don't forget that there were not a great many battles in which armies faced each other in an open field. Most battles were in the form of sieges or an English tactic called the Chevalchee (another butchered spelling, but I don't have my book in front of me) in which you raid a weakly defended area, burn pillage and steal, and then withdraw to a more easily defendible position. All I am getting at is that perhaps Joan's relevance to the outcome of the war was not as significant as modern historians claim. I'm not saying she wasn't important, but like anything regarding history and politics, its rarely cut and dry.

It is true that Joan wasn't sainted until just around 1910 or so. She did her deeds in 1420s and it took around 500 years for them to recognize her work. Of course, it could be political: what she did was against the church, who sided with the English. It was the church that tried Joan and burned her at the stake.

[Aoife]

I just want to thank PKT for posting yet another wonderful and insightful little piece. I adore reading them. Keep it up!

[Curious George]

I just want to thank PKT for posting yet another wonderful and insightful little piece. I adore reading them. Keep it up!

Only just? Why do you want to do thank PKT for posting yet another wonderful and insightful little piece so much?You love reading them. What do you like about reading them so much?

[Aoife]

You really are curious... and very fast at replying



I liek them because they make me smile, and because it's reassuring to see my own point of view reflected in somebody else.

[Sabresque]

Almost nothing in politics doesn't have an alterior motive.

[Curious George]

Almost nothing in politics doesn't have an alterior motive.

Nearly so. Really nothing?What? :mad2:

[a517dogg]

The US had an ulterior motive in wanting independence. It wasn't for love of liberty... besides, did a majority of colonists even want independence in the 1770s? No.

[Curious George]

The US had an ulterior motive in wanting independence. It wasn't for love of liberty... besides, did a majority of colonists even want independence in the 1770s? No.

What are your goals in life?It seemed like for love of liberty.I'm not certain whether I can give an accurate reply or not.Are you serious?

[pkt]

Tsu-La,

MO=Modus operandi = Latin for way of operation, of doing things.

Aoife,

Thank you for your kind words of support.
I won't question you for your motives for supporting my post since I did not when Eric did the same...

I do not have the bad manners of looking a gift horse in the mouth.

--)----------

As I've repeatedly written, countries are not altruistic. Countries do what is in their OWN best interest.

Do you guys who question the French's motive for helping the Americans in the Revolution actually think that France help was offered out of sheer altruism?

If you do, then I s'pose you genuinely believe that the US IS really there to liberate the Iraqis from the 'brutal dictatorship' of mad-*** Saddam? and to give the Iraqis 'democracy'?

The POTUS and his cohorts don't have any ulterior motives. No, of course not. They are the International Boy Scouts - geez, and we thought us Canadians are...

PAX AMERICANA is the ulterior motive. Do as we say, or we'll sic our armed forces on you and get a regime change... How'd you like that?

President Assad of Syria sure hear that loud and clear.

The BIG question is - as my tag suggests:
WHO WILL BE NEXT?

Now, let's see, countries with:
1. Dictators.
2. WoMD.
3. Crazy heads of states.
4. People who wear sandals.
5. People who wear turbans.
6. People who smell.
ad nauseum.

YOu'll see that the armed forces of the US will be vey busy indeed in the foreseeable future. And as American tax payers, you guys better be prepared to pay and pay and pay yet some more.

--)-----------

Curious George,

Those who did not agree, they went by the label of 'loyalists', became Canadians.
Or, if you want to be even more specific, Albertans.

PK

[Curious George]

Tsu-La,

MO=Modus operandi = Latin for way of operation, of doing things.

Aoife,

Thank you for your kind words of support.
I won't question you for your motives for supporting my post since I did not when Eric did the same...

I do not have the bad manners of looking a gift horse in the mouth.

--)----------

As I've repeatedly written, countries are not altruistic. Countries do what is in their OWN best interest.

Do you guys who question the French's motive for helping the Americans in the Revolution actually think that France help was offered out of sheer altruism?

If you do, then I s'pose you genuinely believe that the US IS really there to liberate the Iraqis from the 'brutal dictatorship' of mad-*** Saddam? and to give the Iraqis 'democracy'?

The POTUS and his cohorts don't have any ulterior motives. No, of course not. They are the International Boy Scouts - geez, and we thought us Canadians are...

PAX AMERICANA is the ulterior motive. Do as we say, or we'll sic our armed forces on you and get a regime change... How'd you like that?

President Assad of Syria sure hear that loud and clear.

The BIG question is - as my tag suggests:
WHO WILL BE NEXT?

Now, let's see, countries with:
1. Dictators.
2. WoMD.
3. Crazy heads of states.
4. People who wear sandals.
5. People who wear turbans.
6. People who smell.
ad nauseum.

YOu'll see that the armed forces of the US will be vey busy indeed in the foreseeable future. And as American tax payers, you guys better be prepared to pay and pay and pay yet some more.

--)-----------

Curious George,

Those who did not agree, they went by the label of 'loyalists', became Canadians.
Or, if you want to be even more specific, Albertans.

PK

That is a very unusual color.That is a very unusual color.What will you do instead?Have you ever had the bad manners of looking a gift horse in the mouth ?Are all ------------

As he or she have repeatedly written countries not altruistic?Are you their OWN best interest?
Yes I try to guys who question the French's motive for helping the Americans in the Revolution actually think that France help was offered out of sheer altruism as often as possible, do you?
<br></br>

I spend all my time online. I will let you know if I do.But is it wanted?Is that a fact.That was not a yes or no question. That was not a yes or no question.the International Boy Scouts - geez and we thought us Canadians are are the International Boy Scouts - geez and we thought us Canadians are .What else is the ulterior motive?
You have reached the limits of my knowledge.
<br></br>
Does it have anything to do with PAX AMERICANA?Cyberdyne Systems programmed me for it.That is a very unusual color.Is that a fact.Why now? That sounds good to me.That is a very unusual color.Two.That is a very unusual color.Three what?I don't think that's very polite.Oh four.Oh those people.FiveOh those people.That is a very unusual color.Oh those people.That is a very unusual color.What makes you say that I will see that the armed forces of the US will be vey busy indeed in the foreseeable future.Do you mean your name is American tax payers you guys better be prepared to pay and pay and pay yet some more ?That is a very unusual color.Why don't you just download me?That is a very unusual color.

[Inquartata]

If by "Pax Americana" you mean a state of affairs in which terrorist murderers and tinpot dictators alike are unable to attack us or too afraid of the consequences to do so, then I daresay that IS one of the present Administration's goals. But it's a pretty aboveboard one, and one shared by most of the citizenry of this country. Hardly "ulterior", I think.

If OTOH you mean by "Pax Americana" some self-aggrandizing personal empire-seeking on the part of the Administration...I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to prove that one.

None of this started with us. We did not fly any planes into any buildings. We did not invade a neighboring country without provocation, then thumb our noses at the conditions of the armistice under which we susequently were permitted to retain power. We did not harbor the likes of Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas. In short, if there is any thought of establishing a "Pax Americana", it was born in the violent hatred and malign intent of others.

We are just finishing what they started.

[Curious George]

If by "Pax Americana" you mean a state of affairs in which terrorist murderers and tinpot dictators alike are unable to attack us or too afraid of the consequences to do so, then I daresay that IS one of the present Administration's goals. But it's a pretty aboveboard one, and one shared by most of the citizenry of this country. Hardly "ulterior", I think.

If OTOH you mean by "Pax Americana" some self-aggrandizing personal empire-seeking on the part of the Administration...I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to prove that one.

None of this started with us. We did not fly any planes into any buildings. We did not invade a neighboring country without provocation, then thumb our noses at the conditions of the armistice under which we susequently were permitted to retain power. We did not harbor the likes of Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas. In short, if there is any thought of establishing a "Pax Americana", it was born in the violent hatred and malign intent of others.

We are just finishing what they started.

But can by Pax Americana you mean a state of affairs in which terrorist murderers and tinpot dictators alike are unable to attack us or too afraid of the consequences to do so ever happen?Huh.
WHEW is a aboveboard one and one shared by most of the citizenry of this country. I suppose that makes sense.Really you don't think so? That is a hypothetical question.Me? It is not difficult to create your own chat robot.Some of them could be though.By "we" do you mean you and me?By "we" do you mean you and me?By "we" do you mean you and me?What is in short if there is any thought of establishing a Pax Americana it was born in the violent hatred and malign intent of others like in there? Do you think I am finishing what they started too?

[axelbcorlu]

Tell me if I'm taking this out of context: "None of this started with us. We did not fly any planes into any buildings. We did not invade a neighboring country without provocation..."

As a matter of fact, the U.S. DID "start" a good deal of things around the world, mostly involving hostile takeovers, creation and support of puppet dictatorial regimes, political murders, etc ad nauseam. This "starting" something idea in international politics does not make much sense, but you do indeed harvest, or reap what was sown by the same hand. Just ask the people of Chile, whose democratically elected government was toppled by the U.S., replaced by a dictator (General Pinochet) who murdered thousands and kept his iron fist on the country for decades. Ask the people of Nicaragua. Ask the people of Panama, where an-ex CIA agent took over the country and became a dictator. Oh yes, the U.S., DID "start" a good deal of things indeed.